The one aspect that I find usefull is for accessing a larger memory space.
For example on your typical linux (rh9 32bit) you start to run out of mem
(per process) at about 2gig. I can immediatly take the app an run on a
64bit machine and get at least an additional gig of ram from the
allocators. This is just due to the O/S implementation and some other
stuff the 64 bit o/s does.

Now compile under 64bit native and I can allocate a much (technical term)
Huger chunk of memory. So I would hope that if can use :memory: with
SQLite on a 64bit system (or huge cache) with enough ram to stuff the
entire db in ram.

An example is the MonetDB (IMDB) which on a 32 bit system can't deal with
DB's lager then available ram. On a 64bit system it can go past ram, and
then let the vmm do the swapping (not ideal, but can do db's larger then
ram). They also have options for trying to keep things 32bit sized when
necessary, as the 64bit transition can cost as well, ptrs, etc are now
double in size.

Other folks might have other reasons, but for me it is address space :-)

Sandy

> On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 20:56 -0500, Robert L Cochran wrote:
>> Does this version take advantage of 64-bit cpu's like the AMD Athlon 64?
>
> I don't know.  What do you mean by "take advantage of"?
> What does a 64-bit CPU do that you can't do with a 32-bit CPU?
>
> There are a few limits in SQLite that are based on the number of
> bits in an integer.  For example, you can't have more than 32
> tables in a join.  Except on a 64-bit machine where you can have
> 64 tables in a join.  Is that what you mean by taking advantage
> of a 64-bit CPU?  But note that we could get 32-bit CPUs to
> provide 64 tables in a join just by changing a single line of
> code, namely changing
>
>     typedef unsigned int Bitmask;
>
> into
>
>     typedef unsigned long long int Bitmask;
>
> So how does that really "take advantage of" the 64-bitness of
> some CPUs?
>
> I hear a lot of excitement about 64-bit CPUs which I really
> do not understand.  Please explain this to me.
>
> --
> D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>

Reply via email to